Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent write operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful behavior beyond annotations: the message reaches Goce directly, a reference number is returned, and a constraint of at most 3 links is disclosed. This gives the agent practical expectations without contradicting the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact yet information-dense. It front-loads the action and outcome, then gives guidance, eligibility, the alternative tool, and a constraint in just a few sentences. Every sentence earns its place and no redundant filler is present.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists and the annotations provide a baseline, the description covers all essential context: what to send, what content to include, eligibility, where replies should go, the response behavior, and when to use a sibling tool. An agent has enough information to invoke this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers 71% of parameters, so the description does not need to re-explain every field. It adds meaning by telling the agent what the summary must contain ('the product is, the stage, what is needed, the timeline') and that contact means 'where he should reply.' This complements the schema and helps the agent compose the required content.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Sends Goce Petrov a project brief or a job role.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and differentiates between the two accepted kinds, making it easy to separate from the read-style sibling tools like get_profile and get_services.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance by stating the target context: funded startups, seed to pre-Series A, tech/AI products, and Swiss or remote Europe. It also names the alternative tool and the condition for choosing it: 'Use request_intro instead when the person wants to send the message themselves.' This is clear routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.